A controversial deal to deliver 2,500 new homes on farmland in Barwell has finally been signed off.

Complex legal negotiations over community and infrastructure improvements as part of the Barwell SUE (Sustainable Urban Extension) have concluded.

Planning permission is expected to be given to the multi-million pound project next month.

The green light comes after the consortium of developers submitted their latest draft document outlining what enhancements and facilities will de delivered to both the existing village as well as the new estate.

Read More

The Section 106 agreement determines how much cash the consortium will provide towards, among other things, health, education and leisure.

It now means practical progress can finally be made on the SUE - a vision of urban expansion first mooted a decade ago.

Despite being deeply unpopular with villagers, the SUE was approved in March 2015, subject to the satisfactory completion of the Section 106 deal.

An aerial photograph showing the size of the SUE development on the north-western side of Barwell.

The scheme will bring 2,500 new homes and 6.2 hectares of employment land to the north and west of Barwell.

There will also be sports pitches, a pavilion building and changing rooms, areas of formal and informal open space, children’s play areas, landscaping, allotments and public realm works, pedestrian and cyclists connections and a community hub comprising a primary school and a health centre, or alternatively a family pub and retail and commercial units.

Since the scheme was given the go-ahead officers at Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council have worked with developers, Taylor Wimpey, Ainscough Strategic Land and Barwood Development Securities to finalise the deal.

The long impasse of the Barwell SUE has hampered progress on the Earl Shilton SUE, which hasn’t even reached the outline planning application stage despite years of discussion stretching back as far as 2009.

According to a spokesman for Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council it is agreement on the Section 106 terms which are proving to be a persistent stumbling bock.